The dynamics of the Senkaku/Diayou conflict

Tension is mounting over some uninhabited islands in a crowded neighbourhood in the East China Sea. China and Japan have had a long-running territorial dispute over the islands (called the Senkaku in Tokyo and the Diayou in Beijing), stretching back until at least the end of World War II, although both sides make historical claims that go back much further. Essentially barren rocky outposts, the islands are near strategic shipping lanes and a potential wellspring of natural resources, including fishing, oil and gas.

The most recent flare-up stems from China’s decision to impose an air defence identification zone (ADIZ) over the islands, a non-legally binding declaration that nonetheless has important symbolic meaning. China is not the only country to declare an ADIZ over strategically significant areas — several others including the US, Russia, Japan, Canada and Vietnam have done so — but the Chinese government must have known that declaring an ADIZ in regard to these long-disputed landmasses would be viewed as a provocation. In a provocative act of its own, the US responded by ordering two unarmed B-52 bombers to fly over the islands unannounced, a deliberate challenge to China’s ADIZ assertion.

Viewed superficially, these assorted actions and reactions may seem predictable. After all, much has been written about China’s apparent ascendancy and the US’s ostensible decline in the martial, diplomatic and economic realms. However, the various protagonists’ motivations with regard to the Senkaku/Diayou dispute are much more complex than they appear on the surface.

Japan forged a security agreement after WWII in which it is largely dependent on the US to defend its military interests. Hence, the fly-over. However, from China’s millennia-long historical perspective, Japan’s mid-20^th century imperialistic intentions must seem very recent indeed and its post-WWII meekness, a relatively contemporary trend. Thus, any actions on the part of Japan to demarcate territory in China’s backyard will be regarded with extreme wariness.

This, however, is an overly-simplistic explanation that ignores the influence of domestic discomforts. In Japan, the early promise of Abenomics has failed to jumpstart the long-stagnant economy and wages continue to fall relative to inflation. China’s Communist Party, meanwhile, has had to undertake some very public soul-searching in the wake of the Bo Xilai scandal. Neither phenomenon will have gone unnoticed by the nations’ highly-wired citizens. Thus, the Japanese and Chinese governments may have independently determined that little patriotic fervour could be a useful distraction and decided to drum up nationalistic pride by rallying around some disputed territory.

The US’s rationale is more complex still. Moreover, the legal status of the Senkaku/Diayou dispute is muddled enough that no widely-accepted interpretation of customary international law is likely to emerge any time soon, but the US’s legal advisers in the Pentagon and the State Department will want to register their concerns in a highly visible way.

Underlying everybody’s motivations may just be the simple fact that China, Japan and their neighbours in and around the East China Sea have all got exponentially richer in the last 60 years, and now have the means and resources to make a splash, materially and militarily. Countries have always had the desire to increase their sovereign boundaries.

Most observers don’t believe this latest territorial tantrum will lead to a full-blown military confrontation. But egoistic impulses can crowd even the most clear-headed foreign policy strategy. Here’s hoping this blow-up blows over and these uninhabited backwaters can be left undisturbed until cooler heads prevail.

Published in The Express Tribune, December 11^th, 2013.

Like Opinion & Editorial on Facebook, follow @ETOpEd on Twitter to receive all updates on all our daily pieces.